Progressive Right Wing

>>137233406
>progressive
Define the finishing line.

File: image.jpg (137KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 717x880px

No. Reddit would be more your taste.

>>137233517

There's never a finishing line, there won't be until humans are extinct.

>>137233778
Then there's no such thing as progress.

Progressive right. Is this like the opposite of progressives?

Like, enacting policies that force cultural or social behaviors but being liberal on economic policies?

>>137234083

No, it's progressive in the literal sense of the word. Right wing but with a forward looking outlook, as opposed to a conservative one.

>>137234169
>forward looking outlook
And you think conservatives aren't looking ahead?

>>137233897

Semantically yes, but it's useful to contrast with conservatism. It's ridiculous that progress and leftism have become entangled and the right self-identifying as conservative doesn't help.

>>137234299
>progress
Define progress then, if you can't define the finish line. What does "progressive" mean?

>>137234243

>conservatives

Regression, or at the least maintaining the status quo is implicit in conservatism.

>>137234390

I understand the point you're making, just accept the conceit as a shorthand for now.

>>137233406

id just like to add: muh dick.

>>137234394
>>137234523
Sorry, but I need to know the definition of progress and progressive. If there is no finish line there can be no progress, only a struggle to find stability. Saying conservatives aren't looking ahead is stupid, of course they are and they are conservative because they believe conservatism will best ensure a stable future.

>>137233406
The problem with conservatism is that it holds no solid moral or social principles outside of basic ideas on society. They are generally weak and divided because of this and it gets worse because some feel "different" or "unique" because they don't hold mainstream ideas. This leads to a superiority complex where an idiot will parade himself around as "intelligent" for being different. This has negative effects on bluepilled people because they now want to resist these pretentious fags who go around saying they are better.

>>137234783

Conservatism as an ideology rather than a position taken case-by-case can't reconcile itself with new developments and is therefore doomed to be on the wrong side of history. There are plenty of people who aren't conservative but have mistakenly conflated conservatism with being right-wing.

You're correct, progressive is the wrong term because as you say, it implies forward traction along a particular trajectory. Conservatives may look ahead, but as said, if taken as an ideological position rather than a per-case position it's biased against change. Perhaps you can think of a better alternative to "Progressive Right" that illustrates a rejection of ideological conservatism while retaining libertarian values. For example: If the evidence showed that alternative family structures worked better at raising well-adjusted adults, this political position would advocate that, rather than conservatively advocating a return to the nuclear family.

>>137233406
i don't consider myself racist and economically /pol/ would probably label me communist scum. but i do believe in sovereign nations that try to preserve their cultural identity whatever that is. i believe some it's the state's highest duty to ensure a good life for its people and fight for its interests. there should be trade and cultural exchange but on a reasonable scale that ensures that the indigenous culture does in fact get enriched but still remains intact and does not erode.

if that makes any sense. not a very popular concept anywhere neither on /pol/ or among normies.

File: 1501542938042.jpg (27KB, 480x366px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x366px

Despite a bit of bad optics and some batshit crazy driver, Conservatism is still winning the culture war. The left is losing and will continue to grow frustrated as they lose even more. Hell, television writers are even throwing their hands up.
>http://theblacksphere.net/2017/08/late-night-comedy-writers-frustrated-arent-convincing-americans-hate-trump/
Comedy writers, who have traditionally had their finger on the political pulse and culture in America, are giving up because no one's buying their brainwashing and bullshit anymore.
>“And according to Variety the general theme of the whole panel of writers was, “I don’t really want this job” who complain they are so exhausted trying to win over Trump supporters with there not-so-clever writing.”
In the few days that everyone's been distracted by a little "white man march", Trump has been making unprecedented strides to unfuck our country and end the poisonous PC culture from the left.
>Launched the Telehealth initiative that will provide higher quality healthcare to military members, their husbands, wives, and children and cut down on wait times
>Administration systematically dismantling Affirmative Action from college campuses and removing rewards or "priority" in admissions based solely on someone's skin color so now individuals have to stand on their own merits
>Federal judges (like the one who approved the UtR march and signed off on it) are becoming more conservative every day
While everyone else is distracted, we're getting what we want. We are winning this culture war and taking back our country and it can easily be done in a peaceful, non-violent way if we just stay focused and use our voices at the ballot box just like we did in November. Liberalism, socialism, communism, progressives. All failed and rejected ideologies. Stay strong.

>>137233406
I hate conservatism

I consider myself a romantic. I'm liberal in every way except for when it comes to race, blood, soil and culture

>>137235365
Conservatism is heavy in moral and social principles, it is the most morally guided political belief there is, excluding extremist ideologies. Outside of conservatism political ideologies become gradually less and less morally bound. It is these morals conservatives believe have the best chance of maintaining a stable and functional society. On the issue of division, that's not unique to conservatism and occurs in any ideology as it is the very nature of man to clash.

>>137235601
>it's biased against change
Just as liberalism or "progressivism" are biased towards it. Is change the be-all and end-all? If we find yourselves as a society in a position that is good for all, should we still seek change?

>wrong side of history
Please never use this in debate, it has no true value in it whatsoever and serves only to highlight your concrete bias. It tells me you are not open to having your opinion challenged or altered.

>>137233406
>Progress is inexorable
The left doesn't progress anything in its current form.

bump in hope of sensible debate

OP, you gonna join back in or what?

>>137235991
I spoke earlier of something I called Catch 88. The right can do bad things and still win support as a result thanks to the left's habit of pinning the blame on unconnected people who simply have a different opinion, thus pushing more centrists to the right. Then when the left does something bad they again strengthen the right, as they fail to accept their wrong doing and double down on defending the wrong-doer, thus incriminating their entire ideology and further pushing more centrists to the right.

So long as the left refuses to get outside of its vacuum chamber it is destined to die off, and if it dies off enough things will go so far to the right that many on the right get worried. The key to a successful society is a balance between right and left - a tug of war - but all that is happening now is the right is tugging the weak left along the grass for mile after mile, just as the left did with the weak right for the past few decades.

>>137233406
So what makes you progressive exactly?
I mean, you whine about how you don't support conservative ideas or traditions, yet you support conservative/traditional ideas like closed borders, European culture and marriage.

>>137236181
>If we find yourselves as a society in a position that is good for all, should we still seek change?

well there has never been such an ideal state. i would argue that striving towards this allows change while still checking it against true and tested values. change for the sake of change is just as bad as refusing to change at all costs.

>>137237911
Of course we have never been in such an ideal state, but it highlights well the issue with progressivism as OP speaks of it. It places change at the top of the food chain and makes it the God of all, that is societal suicide.

> change for the sake of change is just as bad as refusing to change at all costs.
It's not as though conservatism is about refusing change though, instead it wishes only to welcome change that doesn't negatively affect the positively functioning politics and morals of the place. Conservatism underwent grand change when with the Christian reformation, conservatism accepted the sharing of land with other races so long as the other races didn't get above themselves. Conservatism allows for change, it simply attempts to allow only change that is sure to be positive for the many. If conservatism is about refusing change then one must explain the existence of black conservatives living in white lands, that is surely the postcard of how conservatism permits change.

But isn't progressivism that change for the sake of change is good? Just like the stereotypical conservative would think that tradition for the sake of it is good.

File: 1498428419824.jpg (507KB, 2000x1443px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 2000x1443px

>>137233406
>>137234169
Congratulations OP, you're a Fascist.

>>137233406
>no huwites
>no western culture

we've all seen what chinks,blacks, spics and pooinloos do when left to their own devices. europeans are the key to western culture

>>137238887
>But isn't progressivism that change for the sake of change is good?
Yes. I requested OP define the finish line and he could not, so of course that means progress is truly impossible. Yet still "progressives" demand progress... toward the undefinable.

>>137238548
i have seen and met my share of conservatives who refuse change just because they uphold their "everything must stay as it is" doctrine and refuse to even discuss certain topics.

a good example is the german official for drug affairs who literally stated that "marihuana is illegal because it is illegal". that is the bad kind of conservatism because it refuses to even analyze a subject and see if there is a a need to reform. but i do agree it is not the definition of conservatism just a common trope.

>>137239814
Get off dope hippie fag

>>137233406
The term is reactionary. This is what you are. No need to come up with a meme name for it. And as anon pointed out, you don't have an endgame, so you're progressing towards nothing, and you're "progressing" until someone who (unlike you) has a vision of the future.

You're looking at political swings like it's the stock market desu.

>>137240005
i hate dope. but i approve legalization or at least not wasting police and court man hours on some hippie and his 1g possession charge while letting rapists and thieves go free.

>>137240005
He never said he smoked it, he just used a politician's stupid answer as a rather apt example of his point.

>>137239814
I think basing your ideas of conservatism off of the behaviours of a politician, no less a German one (no insult to you, your politicians are just bloody awful), is about the most foolish thing one could do when it comes to political inquiry. Established politicians tend to be power hungry monsters who care nothing for their people, but for their money and power. The average bloke on the street who is conservative is hardly anything like that, so that is who the ideas of what conservatism is should be based upon. Sure, many conservatives might be opposed to the legalisation of weed but that's because they believe it to be harmful, and surely opposing the harmful can't be seen as a negative.

>marihuana is illegal because it is illegal
kek. He's not wrong though.

>>137233406
>I don't care about maintaining tradition unless evidence shows it to work better
by definition "new alternatives" have no evidence to support them because they have never been tested.

i don't believe in any of the /pol/ bullshit about race, gender, america, etc, but i am more conservative than any of these fags in the sense that i believe in returning to monarchy, abolishing usury, etc, essentially the conservative platform of 300 years ago.

>>137233406
I think of conservatism and progressivism as a necessary societal yin and yang. Various political ideologies have wanted to enact vast social change very quickly, and it's usually conservatism that stems this tide. No side will really ever win out, it's just a necessary balance in a stable democracy.

The entire American system was set up with this in mind. The whole government is basically designed to not get anything done unless there is wide public support for it which I think is great.

>>137240643
>by definition "new alternatives" have no evidence to support them because they have never been tested.
I think the issue with "progressivism" is that it doesn't proffer solutions to problems, it instead wishes only to remove the thing that causes the perceived problems. A non-real example of this would be people hating the current banking system, so did away with all currency and trading as opposed to adopting a different system such as material bartering. Thus, "progressivism" eventually guts the innards of a once working society, even if it did have flaws, simply because they never had any solutions. They had no final destination, so they never needed to build anything - just remove what they didn't like.